It was unethical for Engineer A to not report Engineer B, in spite of the fact that Engineer A and Engineer B were friends.It was unethical for Engineer B to continue work in an impaired state in which he could not competently perform engineering design, could not guide and direct his subordinates, or properly review their designs or drawings.Engineer Intern C’s complicity in helping Engineer B to continue work was unethical.Engineer A was obligated to report Engineer B to the proper authority, in this case the State Board. As Engineer B’s friend and with Engineer B’s approval, once the matter was reported to the Board, it would have been permissible for Engineer A to help cooperatively identify a temporary practice management alternative that supported the professional and ethical practice of engineering work in Engineer B’s business, until Engineer B returned to full duty.Given his direct knowledge of the situation, Engineer R, like Engineer A, was obligated to report Engineer B to the proper authority, in this case the State Board. If Engineer A did the reporting as noted above, Engineer A’s report could be styled to indicate Engineer R’s concurrence.

The primary issues of this case are the competency and professional actions of Engineer B, Engineer Intern C’s apparent complicity in the matter, the “compassion” of Engineer A and any subsequent actions by Engineer A, and the ethical obligations of Engineer R. The critical assessment of Engineer B’s competency and professional actions is overriding and will lead to other required determinations. The evaluation of this issue can be determined by separate facts. The facts are that Engineer B suffered a stroke and was unable to adequately direct and review engineering designs and drawings being prepared under his signature and seal. While suffering a stroke by itself was not an ethical problem, the fact that Engineer B chose to sign and seal design drawings without proper review while impaired by this stroke was a problem. The BER has not previously examined competence as it relates to mental health; however, the facts in this case make the determination of [non]competence straightforward. Engineer B violated Section II. 2. of the code because he affixed his signature and seal to documents prepared without his direction or control. This also shows Engineer B was practicing in violation of the state licensure law (Section III.8.a). The Board further notes that Engineer B’s actions were in violation of NSPE’s Position Statement No. 10-1778: Responsible Charge which states: “The professional engineer in Responsible Charge is actively engaged in the engineering process, from conception to completion. Engineering decisions must be personally made by the professional engineer or by others over which the professional engineer provides supervisory direction and control authority. Reviewing drawings or documents after preparation without involvement in the design and development process does not satisfy the definition of Responsible Charge.” The actions of Engineer Intern C should be evaluated as well. Granted, Engineer Intern C is not yet a licensed professional enginee...

Engineer A owns a consulting engineering firm specializing in civil engineering and surveying services associated with land development. Business has been very successful, so much so that Engineer A has taken steps to expand the business. Among other things, Engineer A purchased land for a new office building, he retained an architect, and he retained Engineer B, his friend and a structural engineer consultant, to perform the structural design.Construction drawings were completed, permits were issued, a contract was let, and the contractor began construction of the new office building – which included a basement. However, early during the process of constructing the basement there was a significant structural failure. While observing the failed system, Engineer A noticed what he believed was “odd” structural bracing and other questionable structural details. To obtain a second opinion about the failure, Engineer A retained a well-respected structural engineer, Engineer R, to perform an independent review of the structural drawings and the failed basement structure.Engineer R’s review revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details, not only for the failed basement, but also for the portions of the structure that had not been built yet. Engineer A retained Engineer R to completely redesign the structure.As a professional courtesy, and because he considered Engineer B a personal friend, Engineer A met privately with Engineer B and confronted him with the faulty design, including Engineer R’s report. At this meeting, Engineer B divulged he had suffered a stroke a few months prior. Being the only licensed professional engineer in his firm, for financial and other reasons, Engineer B felt he could not afford to suspend work or close his office. Rather, Engineer B’s wife took over management of the business, and Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C, a graduate engineer employee with about two...

Was it ethical for Engineer A to not report Engineer B?Were Engineer B’s actions ethical?Were Engineer Intern C’s actions ethical?What are Engineer A’s further ethical obligations under these circumstances?What are Engineer R’s ethical obligations?

I.1. Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. Subject Reference Duty to the Public II.1.e. Engineers shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering by a person or firm. Subject Reference Unethical Practice by Others II.1.f. Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant, also to public authorities, and cooperate with the proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required. II.2. Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of their competence. II.2.b. Engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans or documents dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence, nor to any plan or document not prepared under their direction and control. Subject Reference Competence Signing Plans/Documents III.7. Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers. Engineers who believe others are guilty of unethical or illegal practice shall present such information to the proper authority for action. Subject Reference Public Statements and Criticism Unethical Practice by Others III.8.a. Engineers shall conform with state registration laws in the practice of engineering. Subject Reference Licensure Laws